Originally posted by stewart_photo That's a mighty fine distinction, especially when both have a right to be there (public access & invited guest), neither appear to be breaking the law, and interference with others has seldom been an serious consideration in prior discussions (about crowded train stations, etc). Those similarities is why it's so strange to now hear you advocating taking away or restricting an individual's right to use his or her camera - so strange to hear you advocating restrictions when you've argued so strongly against restrictions nearly everywhere else.
My earlier suggestion was to "just ignore them," just as one would do at any other event (public or private). While that seems more compatible with the overall philosophy you've advocated in prior discussions, you now apparently disagree.
Not trying to start an argument, just pointing out what seems strange to me - such as calling this individual at the wedding a "fauxtographer" or "bozo," while those you support, with no evidence of greater skill or experience, are always respectfully referred to as "photographers."
stewart
Stewart,
What would you do if someone walked into your studio set and started taking photos of a model you were shooting? I don't suppose you'd just let em shoot merrily away, disrupting your work. No, you'd kick em out or have em arrested for trespassing if they refused to leave.
For purposes of the contract I have with the B&G, the location of the ceremony and reception IS my SET. For purposes of the wedding it is a private space and is under the control and whims of the B&G and the officiant. The B&G have a contract with the venue and my contract grants me access to the venue. They've paid me to record certain parts of the day (at a minimum) and other people with cameras can and often do endanger their end product.
I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again... I have no objection to people taking photos during the wedding as long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to get the important shots. Though, frankly I think that many times the guests taking photos are actually doing a disservice to the B&G and the wedding party. This is often seen where the officiant has declared that no flashes are allowed and guests use flash anyway. I will be shooting available light in accordance with his conditions and flash-flash-flash there go the P&S cameras. Tends to ruin the photo of "the kiss" when you have metered for available light and 15 flashes go off. On at least 3 occasions, I've seen ministers stop the ceremony after a flash went off and refuse to proceed until the offender either put their camera away or left.
Again, I've NEVER advocated a right to take photos on any private/non-public property or space. The debates we've had before have centered around the "right to take photographs" being restricted in spaces or places available to, open to or visible to the general public. I can see how my position on this wedding issue does seem to relate to Mr. Kerzic's situation at Penn Station. It was my claim that since he was a ticketed passenger he had been granted the right to be on the platform and that he had an incidental right to take photos. This IS similar to your assertion that a wedding guest, being invited, should be granted the same rights.
The difference is that Mr. Kerzic was not interfering with any "official" photography taking place at that time. If they had been shooting an AMTRAK video or something or a professional photographer was shooting advertising photos of the platform then it would have been entirely understandable if he had been asked to stop shooting and move along. It would even have been proper to arrest him IF he refused to do so. However, he was acting just like a gazillion other tourists using the platform, taking photos of the neat stuff. His main problem was that he attracted the attention of some terrorist-spooked AMTRAK officers.
So, its apples and oranges. I am quite comfortable and maintain that the right to shoot IN PUBLIC should not be restricted in any way. Restrictions on photography on or within private property are totally fine with me. I've never said otherwise. Your property, your right to say what I can or cannot do on it. Likewise, restrictions on photography on or within duly identified private/restricted areas of public property are completely fair as well, as long as there are compelling justifications for denying the puplic access to their property. Notice that I stress the "on or within" part. This is because I do advocate (and this has been my stance from day one) that you should be able to shoot private or restricted public property from public spaces. Basically the old adage "if you can see it you can shoot it".
Finally, I am not trying to protect my income by banning other photographers. I am quite confident that I can deliver the shot but it gets much harder if I have other "photographers" popping out like jack-in-the-boxes at every "precious moment." Thats what I am there for. I am simply attempting to safeguard the product the couple has paid me for. Remember, MOST wedding photographers get paid up front so I already have the money in the bank when I show up to shoot the wedding. However I feel an ethical responsibility to provide the best images possible and if that means having someone tell Aunt Jane to put away her camera, thats what I'll do.
I also don't care about secondary sales to wedding guests. They never buy photos anyway.
Mike
p.s. I don't care if the guy getting into my shot is Ansel Adams... If he wasn't paid to get the shot, keep him out of my way. If Bozo was so good maybe the couple should have hired him...